Floor Statements

Mr. President, we will immediately resume consideration of H.R. 1591, the supplemental appropriations bill, and begin the process of voting on amendments which remain in order. There are only five amendments which remain in order to the bill. I encourage all Members to remain in the Chamber for these votes so committees and other meetings that are taking place throughout the Capitol can go forward on schedule.

There is a lot of business to be conducted today. I extend my appreciation to all Senators, especially Senator McConnell, for helping us work through the morass we had yesterday. It was very difficult, but we worked through it, and I think it will allow us to get the bill to the President more quickly.

We all acknowledge that the bill is imperfect. That is what conferences are all about. Let's see what we can do to improve it in conference.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, we hope we can have the conference start tomorrow. Tomorrow is Friday, and the fact that we will be out of session a week and the House 2 weeks does not mean Members of Congress cannot be here working on this bill. We all acknowledge, in the first several days--this is a big bill, and staff will do a lot of work, as it has always done. The managers of the bill, both in the House and Senate, majority and minority, will be heavily involved in this conference, and other members of the subcommittees--the chairs and ranking members--as necessary will be involved.

This is an important piece of legislation. No matter the time of year we do these supplemental appropriations bills, they are important. It is an emergency. That is why we are here. While people may not agree as to what is in

the bill, we all agree something needs to be done very quickly. We will move this just as quickly as we can.

I will use leader time. Mr. President, we are trying to get a lot of things done today to finish this bill. There are important committees wanting to meet. Everyone should understand every Democrat is going to vote for this amendment. This is a waste of time. Everyone who is going to be on conference knows the Senate is voting for this amendment. I think it is an effort to slow things down today. I think it is unnecessary. We are all going to vote for this, but if we want to waste 15 minutes of the people's time, we can do that. The Senator has that right.

I rise to enter into a brief colloquy with Senator Dorgan, chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, regarding section 3201 of title III of Senate amendment No. 641 to H.R. 1591, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. I thank the Senator for including in the committee's substitute amendment the language that I requested to ensure that important geothermal energy research can continue in fiscal year 2007, instead of being closed down pursuant to the administration's ill-advised spending plan.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his support for the geothermal energy program and his leadership on national energy policy. As the Senator knows, geothermal energy is a very important resource for Nevada and all Western States to develop to help address our national energy and environmental security problems. There have been several new reports in the past few months from the Geothermal Energy Association, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that show the tremendous untapped potential of this renewable resource. Geothermal energy is clearly an important resource that can provide very valuable clean, baseload power. Its advantages are many and obvious, and the Department of Energy should be expanding its efforts in this area not reducing them.

Given the hostility of the Department of Energy, DOE, and the administration toward expanding our Nation's massive geothermal energy potential through research and deployment, can the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee convey any specific intent about how the appropriated funds in this amendment should be used?

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comprehensive answer. I hope that as we consider the fiscal year 2008 energy and water appropriations bill, Congress will provide expanded support for the geothermal energy program, along with more specific guidance as needed by the distinguished chairman.

Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Tennessee arguing about a provision in the disaster recovery portion of the supplemental relating to the private property rights of billboard owners. First let me note that the bill we voted on was not simply the Iraq supplemental. From the start, it has always been a supplemental that also included provisions for hurricane and natural disaster recovery efforts. Obviously, the Iraq portion of the supplemental is the most important part of the bill, but the supplemental has always also had a disaster recovery title, which is why we saw a majority of members of both Chambers supporting these disaster-related provisions.

I respect the Senator from Tennessee and appreciate his sincerity on the important issue he spoke on. I was disappointed, though, that there was much in what the Senator said that was just plain wrong.

The Senator claimed that the provision at issue was ``amnesty for illegal billboards.'' I don't know what it is these days with the use of the term ``amnesty,'' but some people don't seem to understand what the word means in any context.

All of the billboards affected by the provision are legal. Some of them have been standing legally for decades. But we are not talking about creaky old billboards; many of the billboards at issue are only a few years old, and in more recent years the state they are in happened to changed density or zoning requirements, but sensibly grandfathered in the existing structures.

Many of the billboards at issue provide advertising for small businesses, important information for U.S. drivers, public service announcements, and fuel local tourism industries throughout America. In short, the types of billboards at issue are very common, are a source of information and revenue for States, and are regulated by states.

Saying they are illegal or that we are providing amnesty is a nice rhetorical flourish but is just plain wrong.

The reality is that for decades, the Federal Government, in compliance with law and regulation, deferred to the States in determining whether billboards could be rebuilt or not after a hurricane or other natural disaster. For decades, this issue was not an issue. Then, in recent years, the Federal Government did an about-face and began dictating terms to the States, threatening to withhold Federal highway funds if the States did not trample on private property rights.

Ironically, Tennessee was one of the States that felt the heavy hand of the Federal Government's purse strings. ``Tennessee had a decades- long history-of allowing billboards to be rebuilt after natural disasters. There are probably hundreds of letters from Tennessee granting permission to rebuild after natural disasters, including many from within the past year. Recently, however, the Federal Government told Tennessee it needed to change its policies or it would lose millions of dollars in Federal funding. Tennessee felt that it had no choice, so it changed its policy.

The provision at issue is very simple, it returns us to where we were before the Federal Government changed its policy. It respects States rights and private property rights--principles that people in the West understand well. I am surprised that a small group of Members on the other side of the aisle are opposed to States rights and private property rights. This is especially so, since other Members on the other side of the aisle have traditionally supported this provision, including Members from Louisiana and Mississippi, two of the States hit hardest by the new Federal Government stance on this issue.

The proposal ensures that states that want to allow these billboards to be rebuilt will have that option. If the State does not want to allow the billboards, it does not have to. That was the way things worked for decades.

But, under the new approach by the Federal Government, even if a State thinks the billboards provide a valuable source of revenue or public service and wants to allow them to be rebuilt, the Federal Government stands in the way and prohibits the State from allowing the billboard to go back up. It is about states rights.

So the gentlemen from Tennessee, Florida, and Alabama, are all basically taking a position that the Federal Government knows better than their own States.

Further, the proposal is about private property rights. It ensures that companies and small businesses whose billboards have been destroyed by the hurricane will not lose all of the value of their property.

This is just a matter of basic fairness. The Katrina portion of the supplemental included billions of dollars to help people rebuild their houses, to help private schools rebuild their facilities and programs, and to help small businessowners rebuild their businesses. The Katrina portion of the supplemental was all about rebuilding.

But, a small group of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seems to think that this group of private property owners should be the exception--they should not be able to rebuild and reclaim their property just because their property is disfavored by some. I don't know why these folks are opposed to private property rights and States rights.

Finally, let me note the wide support for this proposal. The Governors of Mississippi and Louisiana support the proposal. The American Hotel Lodging Association supports it. The National Restaurant Association supports it. The Association of National Advertisers supports it. The ``America's Most Wanted'' TV show endorses the proposal because billboards have been helpful in catching criminals. A variety of America's best known brandnames support the proposal, as well--Accor, Best Western, Bob Evans, Cracker Barrel, Dairy Queen, Ford Motor Company, Wendy's, and White Castle.

Mr. President, there will be no more votes today. I express my appreciation to the managers of the bill. Senator Byrd, because of his other responsibilities, couldn't be here. The Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, worked hard on this bill. She has done a wonderful job. We are all indebted to her. Senator Thad Cochran is always very good, thorough, direct, and to the point. We appreciate very much his being the person he is.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority, I know conferees will be all of the Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

It is my understanding a quorum call is not in progress.

Mr. President, earlier this week the Senate took an important step for our troops and for the security of our Nation. For the first time since this ill-conceived war began more than 4 years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate told the President to change course in Iraq. As the American people know, this war has lasted going into 5 years, costing the lives of more than 3,200 Americans and tens of thousands of wounded troops, many of whom I met yesterday at Walter Reed. It has also depleted our Treasury of over $400 billion.

Despite these facts and the brave sacrifice of our troops, the violence continues unabated in Iraq. Our troops are enmeshed in an unquestionable civil war. The people who attacked us on 9/11 have not been brought to justice, and America is less secure today than it was on 9/11.

After all of that, one would think every Member of this body would recognize we are on the wrong path. The more we look at this, it is clear that more of the same will not produce a different result; that success requires a different course. As General Petraeus has said, there is no military solution in Iraq. In fact, he said only 20 percent can be solved militarily; the rest has to be solved diplomatically and economically. That is clear.

Unfortunately, as evidenced by the votes of many of my Republican colleagues and the words of the minority leader on the floor earlier today, this is not the case. There are still too many Members of this body, including the minority leader, who are willing to give this administration a blank check and a green light to proceed down this failed path. It is a long path, with failure every step of the way.

The supplemental spending bill contains an important change of course in the President's Iraq policy, something we, as a separate, independent branch of Government, have the right to do. Our Founding Fathers, when they drafted the Constitution 220 years ago, set forth the few words that have directed this country for more than two centuries: that there would be three separate branches of Government, not any one more powerful than the other--the House and the Senate make up the legislative branch, the judiciary, and executive branches of Government.

We have every right to do what we did. For 6 plus years the President has ignored us. The Republican House and Senate have given him everything he has wanted. But now there is a new Congress. He can't do that anymore. We have constitutional responsibilities. We have to fulfill those responsibilities.

On November 7 the American people spoke very clearly. They said: We want a change of course in Iraq. That is what we legislated this week.

The supplemental spending bill contains important changes in the course of the President's Iraq policy. Given the importance and urgency of this legislation, I am surprised to hear the minority leader discredit this bill and the need to change course in Iraq the way he did earlier today. Senate Democrats believe our troops should get the funding they need without further delay. The only question is whether President Bush and the Senate Republicans will prevent that from happening.

The Senate has now acted and the ball is squarely in the President's court. However, before even being presented with the final version of the legislation, the President has promised a veto. This appears to be nothing more than a strategy designed to score political points, not doing a thing to assist the troops. I am sorry the minority leader has become a facilitator of that strategy.

Senate Democrats will continue to fight to provide the troops the funds they need and a real strategy for success. We have taken an important step in that direction this week, and we will continue to press the President and congressional Republicans to join us in this effort.

This is our constitutional responsibility. I am disappointed and somewhat in a state of disbelief that our President would threaten a veto without even seeing the final legislation. We have obligations, and we are going to fulfill those obligations.

Does the Senator from Pennsylvania wish to speak?

I do have to say to Senator Specter, I haven't had a chance to compliment him lately, but I have done it in the past. Even though it has been 25 years since I practiced law, I look back with great, fond memories of my practice of law. I did a lot of trial work. From the first day I arrived in Washington, I recognized the intellectual, legal brilliance of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I say that without any question. He is someone who has made Washington a better place because of his probative questions always. I appreciate having the opportunity to congratulate the Senator once again on his skill as a lawyer. He has used it well in the Senate.

Mr. President, if I could, through the Chair, say to my friend from Pennsylvania, one of the things we learn as lawyers, which is certainly important, and I wish it would rub off on all Members of this body--I have been in trials with people, and these have been tough cases, but we would walk out of there, shake hands, and become better friends as a result of our adversarial positions.

I wish that would happen on the Senate floor more often. We can disagree on issues, but it should not make us disagreeable. I know the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and I, on rare occasions, have disagreed on issues, but instead of weakening our bonding, it strengthens it because it reminds us--I am confident for him as it does me--of our days in the courtroom, where you would have someone whom you would oppose on an issue, but it

did not mean you opposed them as a person. We would have a responsibility. We were simply doing as a lawyer what that person we represented would have done if they had our education and training.

So as we finish this very difficult week, I again say I look back with such----

Finally, I would say, in closing here, one of the things I have found in this legislative body that is so unique is, if a Member of the Senate gives their word to a Democrat or Republican, or whatever combination thereof, that is it; there need be nothing in writing. The agreements that are made in this body last for years and years. Once you tell a Member of this body: ``This is the deal we have,'' that is the way it is, and I have never had anyone change that. On one occasion, I am sure it happened. I am sure it was from a misunderstanding. But in all the 25 years I have been here, all you need is somebody to tell you what they are going to do, and that is the way it is. That speaks well of everyone serving here.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1071, which was introduced earlier today by Senators Landrieu and Lott; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I would say, very briefly, Senator Landrieu has spoken at great length on this issue. Senator Lott has talked to me several times about this issue. I hope we can get this cleared in the near future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 91, H.R. 137, that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, on this I am very disappointed. There are 3 million members of the Humane Society in America. For every one of them, this is their No. 1 issue; that is, to stop the viciousness, the barbarity of having animals fight each other. People bet on this, as we all know. It is done in several States, and it should be stopped.

That is what this is all about. I am not going to belabor the point, but this is something a number of people on both sides of the aisle feel strongly about. I would think in the next go-around whoever is objecting to this should step forward and state their objection.

We are going to have to--on one of these days when there is not a lot to do; I don't know when that will be, but we will find some time--we are going to have to file cloture on this because it is unfair we are being stopped from moving on a bill that is entitled ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act.'' I think that says it all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, April 10, following morning business, the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of S. 5 and S. 30; that the bills be debated concurrently for a time limitation of 20 hours, with the time divided as follows: 5 hours each under the control of the majority and Republican leaders or their designees; 5 hours each under the control of Senators Harkin and Brownback or their designees; that no amendments or motions be in order to either bill; that upon the completion of debate, the bills be read for a third time en bloc, and that each bill be required to receive 60 affirmative votes to pass; and that if neither achieves 60 votes, then S. 5 be returned to the Senate Calendar, and S. 30 be placed on the Senate Calendar; that S. 5 be the first vote in the sequence; and that there be 2 minutes of debate between the two votes, with the time equally divided between the majority and Republican leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of all time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bills covered under this agreement; if either or both of the bills pass under the provisions provided in this agreement, then the motions to reconsider be considered laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 30 be held at the desk.

Mr. President, again, I do this often because it is necessary often, and that is we do a lot together. This is a unanimous consent on one of the most contentious issues in the country today: stem cell research. The distinguished Republican leader and I were able to work this out. I expressed appreciation to him and the others who felt so strongly about this on the other side of the aisle. This will be good. We can move on after this matter is determined one way or the other when we return from our work period.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 49 through 52; Calendar Nos. 56, 57, and 58; Calendar No. 60; Calendar Nos. 62 through 70; Calendar No. 71, with the exception of BG John F. Kelly, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate resume legislative session. I would also note that these have all been cleared on this side of the aisle.

Mr. President, we also are ready on this side to clear three USAID nominations and the Under Secretary for Defense for Intelligence, but it is my understanding these have not been cleared by the Republicans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 103, the adjournment resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 5 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 136.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 131 and the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record as if given, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 727.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record as if read, with no intervening action or debate.